Kiev Kick Offs

[s(k)aturation]

Clegg's opinion put in newspaper in vague hope that Cameron might hear about it.

 

In which case would need to be The Telegraph... women's fashion section, probably best.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

I hope we're not holding up a President who exited power 45 years ago as a benchmark of current US foreign policy.

Has much changed in US foreign policy those 45 years?

[dennis tooth]

They certainly did try to do a deal with Morsi's people as they always do when someone popular gets in power in these places, there was a massive attempt to woo them to implementing USA policy, they tend to always try to do a deal to corrupt the main dude, then if this is unworkable as they arent scared or corrupted by money or the threat of removal then they tend to get ousted. Normally they do this by bribing heads of the army with money and power. Plus paying mercenaries or terror groups and financial bodies to destabilise the country and teach the people a very powerful lesson not to interfere in the 'forces of democracy'.

[Strontium]

Has much changed in US foreign policy those 45 years?

Yes, Russia stopped occupying every country in Eastern Europe.

[Red Phoenix]

Yes, Russia stopped occupying every country in Eastern Europe.

 

Reminded me of this I saw on the Guardian comments earlier :

 

“We have removed all of our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia and put them behind the Urals” and “reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000. We have taken several other steps required by the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces Treaty in Europe (ACAF). But what have we seen in response? Eastern Europe is receiving new weapons, two new military bases are being set up in Romania and in Bulgaria, and there are two new missile launch areas — a radar in Czech republic and missile systems in Poland. And we are asking ourselves the question: what is going on? Russia is disarming unilaterally. But if we disarm unilaterally then we would like to see our partners be willing to do the same thing in Europe. On the contrary, Europe is being pumped full of new weapons systems. And of course we cannot help but be concerned.”

 

- Russian President Vladimir Putin, Munich Conference on Security Policy, February 2007

 

 

Was just going to post this too :

 

The American press is fond of patting itself on the back for upholding the first amendment to the US Constitution, that being, among other things, freedom of the press. But that does not mean the freedom to obfuscate, ignore facts and curry favor with the US national security apparatus in whatever covert or overt form it takes.

 

The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have engaged, once again, in a classic information operations effort. This time it is to shape a national anti-Russian consensus around the legitimate concerns of the Russian government. As these three big corporate institutions are the semi-official organs of the United States' government, they have shown the weakness of President Obama's national security advisers and, by proxy, heavyweight financiers like George Soros (who runs the Open Society NGO).

 

The power of the three media outlets exists in the corporate, for-profit nature of the enterprises, not any notable journalistic enterprise. They engage in pay-for-journalism beholden to advertisers, shareholders, investors and the US government. All three groups are known to collaborate on stories with state, local and federal officials so that news is not news to officialdom. But as Don Corleone said in the movie The Godfather, “It's just business.” What else can one expect from a quasi-representative democracy?

 

The Wall Street Journal is owned by Fox News Corporation. News Corporation's ability to reach into and shape the opinions of tens of millions of the global watching/listening public is unprecedented. From the Wall Street Journal to National Geographic--and hundreds of media outlets local, national and global--it can carry its anti-Russian message 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

 

The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos of Amazon fame. Little reported is the $600 million contract it recently won to provide the CIA with information technology products and services. Bezos had negligible presence in Washington, DC prior to his acquisition of the Washington Post, but now has a very loud voice. The Post has always been close to the CIA and other national security agencies with Katherine Graham (former owner) indicating in a speech to the CIA that there are some things Americans “don't need to know and should not...”

http://cryptome.org/2014/03/ukraine-national-socialism.htm

[Red Phoenix]

One more :

 

U.S. Hypocrisy on Crimean Secession Move: Washington Supported Breakup of Sudan, Yugoslavia, Iraq

 

While a Crimean secession from Ukraine is unwise and will cause a lot of trouble, it isn’t unprecedented in the last few decades and the US and the West have supported some secessions or country break-ups when they suited their interests, while opposing others.

 

The US supported the secession of Kosovo from Serbia in the late 1990s (both had been part of the Yugoslav federation in the Cold War, but it fell apart in the 1990s; Serbia’s claims on parts of Bosnia and on all of Kosovo as the main Yugoslav successor state were rejected by the US, which helped Bosnia and Kosovo secede.)

 

Slovakia seceded from Czechoslovakia in 1993, although that was a more amicable split than the Kosovo secession or the Crimean one, if it happens. Still, Slovaks voted to secede, and no one stood in their way.

 

The US was positively delirious about the break-up of Sudan and the creation of South Sudan 2011. (Forces in the US congress see the break-up and weakening of Arab Muslim states as a good thing). The wisdom of that secession is questionable, since South Sudan has promptly become a failed state and is now having a civil war. The violence down there was always blamed on Khartoum, but apparently there are social formations and economic conditions in the south that just aren’t conducive to order.

 

...

 

...those pundits (and President Obama himself) who are suggesting that a Crimean secession from Ukraine would be contrary to international law or unprecedented, or that the US would always oppose such a thing, haven’t been paying attention. The US position on secessions depends on whether Washington likes the country affected.

U.S. Hypocrisy on Crimean Secession Move: Washington Supported Breakup of Sudan, Yugoslavia, Iraq

[KopOut]

So does that not demonstrate US support FOR Morsi? Or does that only apply to the people McCain meets in Ukraine?

Morsi was Obama's man, yes.

However, my understanding is that Morsi abused his power, becoming more dictatorial, and moving away from the democratic process.

 

Was this the intent of US foreign policy in the region? Deliberate destabalisation?

[KopOut]

My impression was the ouster of Mubarek was just a pressure release.

 

The army has always controlled Egypt, as they do now.

 

And the US has always allocated a pretty significant chunk of it's foreign aid budget to Egypt, and Egypt's army.

 

I could be wrong though.

Israel has always received about 90% so that doesnt leave much to go around.

[Stu Monty]

Has much changed in US foreign policy those 45 years?

 

You're asking the wrong man. I'd venture his shelves aren't creaking with the weight of investigative journalism regarding the issue.

[Strontium]

Stu Monty's bookshelf, yesterday:


 

:ph34r:

[Anubis]

 

:ph34r:

 

 

Have you raided my Facebook page for pictures of my house?

 

Stalker.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Yes, Russia stopped occupying every country in Eastern Europe.

So the US hasn't changed it's foreign policy at all then.

[xerxes]

International politics rarely fits easily into stereotypes peddled to make things easier for everyone to understand.

 

Dictatorship can be a “bad thing”, it has also suppressed, for better and for worse, local and ethnic rivalries and enmities, which when unleashed, can be as unpleasant as the original dictatorship.

 

Independence can be a “good thing” but can hit a point where it creates more problems than it solves. An era of freedom tends to encourage localism, an era of war, or the threat of war, tends to see countries allying and assimilating for the benefits of size and protection.

 

Putin is no benevolent pussycat, but retaining access to the Black Sea via the Crimea and protecting Rusian enclaves in the Ukraine seems pretty reasonable to me. The US would hardly surrender its naval assets in the Gulf, Japan or Naples, and its protection of American jewish interests in Israel is fanatical.

 

The Ukraine does not speak with one voice and will need to reach an accommodation with itself and external interests.

[ZonkoVille77]

International politics rarely fits easily into stereotypes peddled to make things easier for everyone to understand.

 

Dictatorship can be a “bad thing”, it has also suppressed, for better and for worse, local and ethnic rivalries and enmities, which when unleashed, can be as unpleasant as the original dictatorship.

 

Independence can be a “good thing” but can hit a point where it creates more problems than it solves. An era of freedom tends to encourage localism, an era of war, or the threat of war, tends to see countries allying and assimilating for the benefits of size and protection.

 

Putin is no benevolent pussycat, but retaining access to the Black Sea via the Crimea and protecting Rusian enclaves in the Ukraine seems pretty reasonable to me. The US would hardly surrender its naval assets in the Gulf, Japan or Naples, and its protection of American jewish interests in Israel is fanatical.

 

The Ukraine does not speak with one voice and will need to reach an accommodation with itself and external interests.

Good post, in full.

You make some good points though. Sometimes it's a case of better the devil you know.... how many times have we seen a dictator being removed and the replacement being many times worse?

 

In the case of the Crimea, you can totally understand why they would like to realign themselves with Moscow. Let them I say. The ukrainian economy is fucked and relying on Russian assistance anyhow. May as well be ruled by them.

[Stu Monty]

Stu Monty's bookshelf, yesterday:

 

 

:ph34r:

 

Sad.

 

Feel free to recommend me some reading. I actually do have a thirst for facts on the issue; that's why I take the time to read. I'd imagine it's the same thirst that's driven you to investigate the likes of Jeremy Scahill, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Pilger, Klein and Greg Palast, to challenge your worldview about how democracy, government and business actually interact in the real world.

 

I even have such crazy lefty liberal conspiracy theorists as Peter Oborne on my shelves...it's some pretty tin foil hat stuff I can tell you.

 

What was your last truth to power read then Dog?

[Bobby Hundreds]

I have actually read some of those books. I read the twin towers one first I had no idea who david icke was, the book seemed legit and scary and then he started going on about reptilians and shit and I thought what the fuck this guy is bat shit crazy and I've just wasted all this time reading an inch worth of pages on his insane rumblings. I read a couple more afterwards just to see his perspective on the world out of amusement. Whether some of his conspiracy ideas have grains of truth he is still massively deluded and probably a bit mental. The world needs mad characters though.

[Jairzinho]

I have actually read some of those books. I read the twin towers one first I had no idea who david icke was, the book seemed legit and scary and then he started going on about reptilians and shit and I thought what the fuck this guy is bat shit crazy and I've just wasted all this time reading an inch worth of pages on his insane rumblings. I read a couple more afterwards just to see his perspective on the world out of amusement. Whether some of his conspiracy ideas have grains of truth he is still massively deluded and probably a bit mental. The world needs mad characters though.

 

No, it doesn't.

 

Its nutters like David Icke that allow mainstream media to ridicule everyone to the left of Ann Coulter.

 

[polymerpunkah]

They have done since the 79 peace accord with Israel. They don't want Egypt deciding they have had enough of Israel etc, better that they are strategic partners...  that's why McCain flip flopped, as the cutting of aid to Egypt could of been bad for Israel.

Yes.

 

That was why I think Mubarek's removal was just a pressure release (I didn't at the time).

 

I don't know how much control the US had over the process, but it looks as if their preferred status quo has been restored.

 

 

Looking at the Ukraine, I don't see the same sort of strategic interests involved. So I wonder why they would want to destabilize the situation?

[Stu Monty]

So they aren't a strategic benefit to Russia.

[Bobby Hundreds]

No, it doesn't.

 

Its nutters like David Icke that allow mainstream media to ridicule everyone to the left of Ann Coulter.

 

 

 

Okay then I need them. The mainstream ridicule anyone their owners wish them too.

[Bjornebye]

Stu Monty's bookshelf, yesterday:

 

 

:ph34r:

 

What the fuck is that? A smiley of some sort? negged

[Section_31]

 

No, it doesn't.

 

Its nutters like David Icke that allow mainstream media to ridicule everyone to the left of Ann Coulter.

 

 

 

Ironically, virtually everyone I can think of on 'the right' is a total spaz. Imagine Clinton and Obama having a game of Trivial Pursuit with Reagan and either of the Bush boys.

[Jairzinho]

Ironically, virtually everyone I can think of on 'the right' is a total spaz. Imagine Clinton and Obama having a game of Trivial Pursuit with Reagan and either of the Bush boys.

 

Bush Jnr would be pretty decent at Scrabble as long as he was allowed to use words he has made up.

 

But yes, you have to be stupid or evil to have right wing views. The most dangerous tend to be both.

[stringvest]

Bush Jnr would be pretty decent at Scrabble as long as he was allowed to use words he has made up.

 

But yes, you have to be stupid or evil to have right wing views. The most dangerous tend to be both.

 

For the vast majority of Tory supporters the primary motivations are greed and selfishness.  It tends to be those towards the evil end of the spectrum who become leading lights in right wing parties or movements.  

[Section_31]

For the vast majority of Tory supporters the primary motivations are greed and selfishness.  It tends to be those towards the evil end of the spectrum who become leading lights in right wing parties or movements.  

 

I think the right deals in simple answers too so it doesn't attract people who want complex solutions to complex problems, the further to the right, the simpler the answers. Get out of Europe, make everyone go to work (with no explanation of how to achieve this), lock up evil doers, rebuild the military etc etc. Basically your typical conservative wants to turn the clock back to the Heartbeat/Darling Buds of May version of the 50s as they imagine it, that's as true of UKIP as it is for the Tea Party. Picket fences, no Mexican immigrants, church on Sunday, marvellous.